faith is love, and why that can be bad
2008-Aug-12, Tuesday 09:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mellowtiggerHopefully kauko is still out there reading LiveJournal, since today's post is a followup to his question from two months back. It's taken significant pondering and reading to find a better answer to the question, since so many intertwined ideas/emotions are tangled up in the problem. Curiously, it also relates to bitterlawngnome's (and my own) mingling of passion and intellect. The argument could probably be shortened, but I need to get ready for work shortly, so here it is.
Why does society allow religions to hold on to their bigotries whereas in any other aspect of our culture they would not be tolerated.
My conclusion is that the necessary methods for enforcing anti-bigotry in religion would be unpleasant for most people to even consider... and that unpleasantry is why religion as a doctrine is allowed to maintain its bigotries. The cost to remove it is considered worse than the ailment itself. Although this matter is generally understood at the level of emotion rather than rationalization. Here follows my attempt to rationalize/uncover that reality/instinct.
In a letter that I wrote back in September 2001, I was explaining to someone that affection and faith are the same in some of their qualities. Namely that forcing them upon another person is destructive, and that all one can do is offer these gifts to someone honestly while accepting whatever decisions they may make afterward.
Daniel Dennett (in "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon") is far more explicit. He explains that religion is not just like love, but that it is a kind of love. Humans experience it that way because of a memetic "Good Trick" in coopting our capacity for one development and using it for a different development. Humans defend their love (of person or of faith) with equal fanaticism, and both render humans equally blind to intelligent inquiry. Indeed, we take pride in our love that appears without rational explanation of its benefits. We lavish our love (of person or of faith) with beautiful gifts such as incense, masterpieces of art, magnificent architecture, songs of love, passionate words of poetry, and elegant ceremony. They inspire the same acts of selfless devotion and sacrifice. The experience of beauty and of belonging is the same.
Religious doctrine is as convoluted as physics. I assume that some of these matters are beyond the ken of some people. We have Doctors (of physical disciplines) for the same reason that we have Rabbis/Priests/Imams (of religious disciplines)... so that people better equipped to consider these ideas may do so and then tell their conclusions to the rest of us. We concede that we are too ignorant or stupid to understand them fully ourselves. Some faith (just as some love) can be bad for our well being. Yet we are forbidden by social rule from interfering. If it were only a matter of explaining a rational argument to convince someone of their foolishness, then I expect that human history would read very differently than it does now. The truth is that some arguments are too complex for some people to understand. "All men are created equal"? Not so. Exposing the lie, though, would exact a terrible cost since democracy is based upon the concept of this mythical equality.
Some people will not understand the intricacies of the social argument about the harm (whatever situation you want to examine) done by their religious doctrine. Assuming you are unable to convince them logically, then how do you change their behavior anyway? Coerce/legislate by the authority of your superior argument? (We're smarter than you, so our opinion and vote counts more than yours.) I myself am still torn between the idea of meritocracy (technocracy) and democracy. I see costs and benefits to each method. I think it would be enormously satisfying to hold an IQ test as entrance barrier to the voting booth... until I someday failed the test myself. I thinkkauko's question exposes another consequence of each system.
We accept that the selfish pursuit of happiness (love, religion, theory, etc) must continue without interference. If some people want to believe in their own (racial, ethnic, religious, intellectual) superiority, then they are allowed to do so. Their organizations will succeed or fail as individuals support or abandon them. All the individuals of a society must change first, so that the institutions may change afterward. Top-down coercion is not allowed because the cost to liberty would be too high. We console ourselves with the hope that we will all educate ourselves during our stumbling.
My first answer to the question focused on this consolation. If these ignorant fools are at least considering the right questions, then perhaps they will eventually learn the same truth that I plainly see if they just spend more time at their foolishness. Why they fail to reach the same conclusions in the first place is a different question. My second answer to the question of why we allow them to continue (in religion) with their bigotries is because the assumption of authority over someone else's most personal of endeavors (love... of person or of religion) would be bad for all of us.
Why does society allow religions to hold on to their bigotries whereas in any other aspect of our culture they would not be tolerated.
Because "authoritative" interference in matters of love carries abhorrent consequences. It seems less dangerous to merely continue "hoping for the best" that they will learn from their mistakes, in spite of the obvious evidence that they haven't yet learned from them.
kauko is still out there reading LiveJournal, since today's post is a followup to his question from two months back. It's taken significant pondering and reading to find a better answer to the question, since so many intertwined ideas/emotions are tangled up in the problem. Curiously, it also relates to bitterlawngnome's (and my own) mingling of passion and intellect. The argument could probably be shortened, but I need to get ready for work shortly, so here it is.Why does society allow religions to hold on to their bigotries whereas in any other aspect of our culture they would not be tolerated.
My conclusion is that the necessary methods for enforcing anti-bigotry in religion would be unpleasant for most people to even consider... and that unpleasantry is why religion as a doctrine is allowed to maintain its bigotries. The cost to remove it is considered worse than the ailment itself. Although this matter is generally understood at the level of emotion rather than rationalization. Here follows my attempt to rationalize/uncover that reality/instinct.
In a letter that I wrote back in September 2001, I was explaining to someone that affection and faith are the same in some of their qualities. Namely that forcing them upon another person is destructive, and that all one can do is offer these gifts to someone honestly while accepting whatever decisions they may make afterward.
Daniel Dennett (in "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon") is far more explicit. He explains that religion is not just like love, but that it is a kind of love. Humans experience it that way because of a memetic "Good Trick" in coopting our capacity for one development and using it for a different development. Humans defend their love (of person or of faith) with equal fanaticism, and both render humans equally blind to intelligent inquiry. Indeed, we take pride in our love that appears without rational explanation of its benefits. We lavish our love (of person or of faith) with beautiful gifts such as incense, masterpieces of art, magnificent architecture, songs of love, passionate words of poetry, and elegant ceremony. They inspire the same acts of selfless devotion and sacrifice. The experience of beauty and of belonging is the same.
Aside: I wrote in 1996 that science is another aspect of the same situation. Religion and science are equivalent experiences (or have been, at least, in my life), and I think that love of individual can join them in trinity. And I do mean passionate love, not (mere) brotherly love. Here is a clue to
Religious doctrine is as convoluted as physics. I assume that some of these matters are beyond the ken of some people. We have Doctors (of physical disciplines) for the same reason that we have Rabbis/Priests/Imams (of religious disciplines)... so that people better equipped to consider these ideas may do so and then tell their conclusions to the rest of us. We concede that we are too ignorant or stupid to understand them fully ourselves. Some faith (just as some love) can be bad for our well being. Yet we are forbidden by social rule from interfering. If it were only a matter of explaining a rational argument to convince someone of their foolishness, then I expect that human history would read very differently than it does now. The truth is that some arguments are too complex for some people to understand. "All men are created equal"? Not so. Exposing the lie, though, would exact a terrible cost since democracy is based upon the concept of this mythical equality.
Some people will not understand the intricacies of the social argument about the harm (whatever situation you want to examine) done by their religious doctrine. Assuming you are unable to convince them logically, then how do you change their behavior anyway? Coerce/legislate by the authority of your superior argument? (We're smarter than you, so our opinion and vote counts more than yours.) I myself am still torn between the idea of meritocracy (technocracy) and democracy. I see costs and benefits to each method. I think it would be enormously satisfying to hold an IQ test as entrance barrier to the voting booth... until I someday failed the test myself. I think
kauko's question exposes another consequence of each system.We accept that the selfish pursuit of happiness (love, religion, theory, etc) must continue without interference. If some people want to believe in their own (racial, ethnic, religious, intellectual) superiority, then they are allowed to do so. Their organizations will succeed or fail as individuals support or abandon them. All the individuals of a society must change first, so that the institutions may change afterward. Top-down coercion is not allowed because the cost to liberty would be too high. We console ourselves with the hope that we will all educate ourselves during our stumbling.
My first answer to the question focused on this consolation. If these ignorant fools are at least considering the right questions, then perhaps they will eventually learn the same truth that I plainly see if they just spend more time at their foolishness. Why they fail to reach the same conclusions in the first place is a different question. My second answer to the question of why we allow them to continue (in religion) with their bigotries is because the assumption of authority over someone else's most personal of endeavors (love... of person or of religion) would be bad for all of us.
Why does society allow religions to hold on to their bigotries whereas in any other aspect of our culture they would not be tolerated.
Because "authoritative" interference in matters of love carries abhorrent consequences. It seems less dangerous to merely continue "hoping for the best" that they will learn from their mistakes, in spite of the obvious evidence that they haven't yet learned from them.
Going off on a Tangent, then coming back on Topic
Date: 2008-Aug-12, Tuesday 06:00 pm (UTC)Too often people take one line someone wrote out of context of the paragraph and document in which it was written, and of the period of time in which it was written, and that's when confusion over the issue ensues.
Saying that all men are created equal did not mean that they are all treated equally, nor was it meant to imply that all men were created with equal mental, emotional, economic, or physical status. It was to statement that all men were created with the same natural rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It was a statement of a political philosophy, not a statement of physical reality. And the people who wrote it were not establishing a democracy, they loathed the idea of democracy and majority rule and thought government(and hence, the majority) should be chained by constitutional laws.
a bit more on topic, I am of two minds on the issue that any issue is too complex for anyone.
On one hand I think it is a bogus position postulated by those who wish maintain control over their position. It's an appeal to authority.
I am one who has never simply accepted any knowledge based on an appeal to authority. I question everything, and do not believe knowledge is unattainable or unknowable. And I think everyone is capable of learning something they set their minds to learn.
On the other hand, it does appear that a vast majority of people on this world often appeal to authority to justify their "knowledge base" and give up any responsibility on their part to verify their premises. Is it just laziness or are they truly incapable of thinking for themselves? Are they raised this way, or is it an aspect of their nature?
So when I bring the two hands together, I conclude that people are capable of learning, but are limited by their experience. Those who are told only one thing in their lives tend to belief it, those who are constantly exposed to other viewpoints are more equipped to think for themselves. If they are not even exposed to the right questions, why would they even consider an answer to it?
The reason we don't impose rules on religious institutions is that to do so would invite them to the rule making table, it's bad enough that they are there whispering in the ears of those at the table. The separation of Church and State is ingrained into our collective minds. There is a reason it was part of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It has been and continues to be whittled at aggressively by those with a religious agenda.
I find the question to be begging the question on a couple fronts.
First the use of the term "society" as a causal agent. Society as an agent of change, does not exist. Society is the sum total of all human interaction, to assume that society is an agent of change would assume we are a collective and are of one mind.
Second, there are many arena of our culture which tolerate bigotries, so singling out religion on this issue is a bit unfair.
I continue to postulate that faith (and perhaps even love) or lack off are not chosen attributes, you either have faith, or you don't, you either believe or you don't, you either love someone, or you don't. Where you land on the spectrum is totally based on your experiences and knowledge base. Where ever one falls on the spectrum, they didn't choose to land there. That's not to say they are stuck where they land either, new experience can move them along the spectrum in either direction.
I didn't chose to be an atheist, I have been one all my life, the notion of religion never made sense to me. And although I have tried a few times in my life to "find" faith, my experience brings me back home to where I started. I no more choose to be an atheist than I choose to be born a white male in Minnesota. And I can't switch it on and off like a light, or choose to just start believing like choosing between a banana or an orange (some may say that even that simple choice was also already made by my experiences).
Re: Going off on a Tangent, then coming back on Topic
Date: 2008-Aug-12, Tuesday 10:56 pm (UTC)The Founding Fathers had their doubts about the practical extent of 'equality' too. We have an electoral college because it's a point of last resort for educated folk to countermand the choice of the popular vote. If the population of sheeple are swayed to vote for a charismatic leader, the intelligentsia have an opportunity to divert the damage. ("All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - Animal Farm) It's a reality that's rarely discussed because, again, it disturbs the mythical "equality" that is the American mantra.
no subject
Date: 2008-Aug-12, Tuesday 07:18 pm (UTC)So my question was only asking why that was the case but with no implication that any governing body should step in and tell anyone what they have the right to believe.
no subject
Date: 2008-Aug-12, Tuesday 10:58 pm (UTC)*LAUGH*
Okay, "Why is bigotry good for religion?" Sure, that's actually a much easier question for me to answer. Look for a post in a few days. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-Aug-12, Tuesday 10:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-Aug-13, Wednesday 03:30 am (UTC)I guess i never said that I wasn't inferring government action in there, but I just didn't even think it could be understood that way. There is of course precedent for the government stepping in on matters like these as is seen from all the civil rights legislation over the past 50+ years, but in the matter of religion and personal belief it would be far too problematic and go against our notions of the right for people to believe in what they would. Even blatantly racist groups, KKK, neo-nazi, white supremacy groups etc, have the legal right to hold their beliefs even though the majority of Americans find them wrong. The government would only step in when these people take their beliefs to the point of infringing on the rights of others, such as advocating violence, etc.